AI-Augmented Adaptive Digital Twin Modeling for Brain Tumor Evolution Prediction and Treatment Scheduling

Michael Trimboli; Wenxi Liu; Xianqi Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AI-Augmented Adaptive Digital Twin Modeling for Brain Tumor Evolution Prediction and Treatment Scheduling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A mechanistic tumor-growth model paired with a learned residual and online recalibration reduces simulated forecast error by 84.3% and improves treatment scheduling, within a synthetic testbed the authors acknowledge is not clinical validat

desk verdict Honest, internally consistent feasibility study of an integrated RD + residual + online adaptation + MPC pipeline, but all headline gains are measured against the paper's own simulator and the online-updating gain assumes dense oracle observations. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13877 v1 pith:YZHZPOZG submitted 2026-07-15 cs.LG

Wenxi Liu , Michael Trimboli , Xianqi Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords braintumordigitaltwinreaction-diffusionmodelresiduallearningonlineadaptationpredictivecontrolglioblastomasyntheticvalidationevolutionprediction

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a brain-tumor digital twin should combine an interpretable mechanistic backbone with a learned correction and continuous online recalibration, rather than relying on either approach alone. Using 387 synthetic tumor trajectories built from real brain anatomy, it shows that the reaction-diffusion model alone captures tumor location but underestimates heterogeneous density, and that adding a 3D residual network cuts voxel-wise mean squared error by 84.3%. Recalibrating that residual during recursive rollout cuts error a further 45.9%, and using the updated model inside a model predictive controller reduces final tumor burden by 22.4% versus a fixed schedule. The authors are explicit that this is controlled synthetic validation, not clinical proof, and that sparse observations — the clinically realistic case — require separate tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid transition bN_{j+1} = clamp[M_brain(f_RD(N_j,a_j) + f_phi(N_j,a_j))], where f_RD is the interpretable reaction-diffusion operator and f_phi is a 3D U-Net — a convolutional network — that outputs a voxel-wise correction field. The residual is trained to match the discrepancy between reference and RD states, and during online updating only f_phi is retrained, using a short rollout loss on recent patient-specific transitions. This keeps the mechanistic backbone fixed while adapting the learned correction to the current trajectory.

What would settle it

In a longitudinal animal-tumor study with imaging at clinically realistic intervals, if the online-adapted hybrid model fails to beat the RD baseline in voxel-wise error after tuning update hyperparameters, the updating claim would be refuted; similarly, if the 84.3% hybrid error reduction does not reproduce on real MRI-derived tumor states, the model-form correction would not transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that model-form error — the systematic gap between a simplified mechanistic tumor-growth model and the observed trajectory — can be learned as a voxel-wise residual and recalibrated online, and that the resulting digital twin can drive treatment scheduling. In this controlled testbed, the baseline RD model, which intentionally omits spatially varying proliferation, captures tumor location but accumulates density and burden errors over a 120-step rollout. The hybrid RD-residual model corrects that mismatch, and patient-specific updating of the residual during recursive forecasting stabilizes long-horizon predictions. Coupled with MPC, the updated twin selects schedule

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the controlled synthetic reaction-diffusion simulator with its hand-chosen growth, diffusion, and exponential treatment-response parameters stands in for real brain-tumor evolution and treatment response, since every headline gain is measured against that simulator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the hybrid correction generalizes, adding a learned residual to a mechanistic model is a practical way to correct model-form error without discarding interpretable tumor dynamics.
If online recalibration is used, the twin must be fed frequent, reliable observations; under sparse observations with dense-tuned hyperparameters, mean squared error gets 15.2% worse while spatial overlap improves, so update frequency is part of the model design.
If the MPC layer is used, reducing terminal burden can come at the cost of higher cumulative burden and higher toxicity exposure, meaning the controller objective, not just model accuracy, determines clinical desirability.
If the framework moves toward clinical use, the natural next evidence step is longitudinal animal-tumor studies with repeated imaging and known treatment delivery, as the authors state.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the Dice-versus-MSE divergence under sparse updates suggests clinical deployment should be validated against tumor-burden estimates, not only spatial overlap, because burden drives treatment decisions.
Editorial inference: the same hybrid-residual recipe — a mechanistic backbone plus online recalibrated residual — could be tested in other predictive physiology settings where the governing equations are known to be structurally incomplete.
Editorial inference: a testable extension is to make update frequency event-driven, triggering recalibration only when a drift or uncertainty signal indicates predicted and observed states are diverging, which could recover sparse-observation performance.
Editorial inference: the terminal-burden versus cumulative-burden tradeoff implies that pairing the twin with a multi-objective controller is a natural next step rather than a single-objective terminal-burden minimizer.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a carefully built, internally consistent feasibility study of an RD + 3D U-Net residual + online adaptation + MPC pipeline for brain tumor forecasting and treatment scheduling. What's actually new is the integration of those four ingredients in one controlled testbed with patient-derived anatomy from UPENN-GBM. The paper earns credit for being transparent: it states up front that validation is synthetic, the residual is a model-form correction not a biological mechanism, and the sparse-observation ablation in Sec. 5.5 shows online adaptation with the same hyperparameters makes MSE 15.2% worse than the RD baseline. The arithmetic in the tables checks out, and the distinction between terminal and cumulative burden under MPC is reported honestly.

The main soft spot is that all three headline gains — 84.3%, 45.9%, 22.4% — are measured against the authors' own simulator. The residual target in Eq. (10) is simply the difference between the reference and baseline RD models, and the only systematic difference between those two is a spatially varying proliferation field. So the 84.3% MSE reduction is largely a capacity check: a flexible U-Net should fit that deterministic discrepancy; it doesn't tell you the model learned tumor biology. The 45.9% online-updating gain assumes a fresh reference observation at every simulation step — an oracle schedule clinical MRI cannot provide — and the paper's own Table 6 shows the adaptation hyperparameters backfire under a 7-step schedule. The MPC 22.4% terminal-burden reduction is obtained by replaying controller-selected actions through the same reference simulator against a single hand-picked fixed schedule; cumulative burden is worse under MPC, which the paper acknowledges. There are also no confidence intervals on the paired-median 22.4% reduction, no code or data release, and no comparison against a learned baseline or an existing reaction-diffusion calibration approach.

None of this kills the paper as a controlled feasibility study. It is useful for anyone building digital-twin testbeds who wants a clean comparison of residual correction and online adaptation in a simulator where ground truth is known. But the external validity is unestablished, and the adaptation result, as presented, is tied to an observation density that doesn't exist clinically. I'd send it to peer review — the integration is coherent, the paper is honestly scoped, and reviewers can usefully push for realistic observation schedules, confidence intervals, code release, and at least one non-trivial baseline. I would not cite it as evidence about clinical tumor forecasting; I might cite it as an example of a well-structured synthetic testbed.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a four-stage digital-twin framework for brain-tumor evolution: (1) an imaging-derived initial state, (2) a reaction-diffusion (RD) mechanistic backbone, (3) a 3D U-Net residual module that corrects the RD one-step prediction, (4) online recalibration of the residual during recursive rollout, and a model-predictive-control layer for chemotherapy/radiotherapy scheduling. All experiments use 387 synthetic trajectories built from UPENN-GBM anatomy, where a reference simulator with spatially varying proliferation generates the target trajectories and a baseline RD model with a global proliferation rate provides the mechanistic backbone. The residual target is defined by Eq. (10) as the reference state minus the baseline RD prediction. Headline results are an 84.3% reduction in masked voxel-wise MSE and a 43.5% Dice improvement for the offline hybrid model; a 45.9% MSE reduction and 9.6% Dice improvement for online updating under dense observations; and a 22.4% median final-tumor-burden reduction for MPC versus a fixed schedule. The paper also reports a sparse-observation ablation in which online updating worsens MSE by 15.2% relative to the RD baseline, and a scheduling comparison in which MPC increases cumulative burden.

Significance. The manuscript is transparent about its synthetic setting, and the numerical claims are internally consistent: the 84.3% and 43.5% figures follow from Table 3, the 45.9% and 9.6% figures follow from Table 4, and the 22.4% figure follows from Table 5. The paper also honestly reports a sparse-observation failure case and the cumulative-burden trade-off in MPC, which is a strength. If the contribution is read as a controlled feasibility study, it usefully demonstrates that a hybrid mechanistic/learning model, online recalibration, and MPC can be integrated into a single executable pipeline and can correct a prescribed model-form misspecification inside a simulator. The main limitation is external validity: every quantitative claim is evaluated against the authors' own reference simulator, and the online-updating and treatment-scheduling results depend on oracle-quality dense observations. Consequently, the paper establishes a proof-of-concept benchmark rather than evidence about clinical brain-tumor forecasting or treatment planning.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §5.2; Eq. (10); §4.2] Eq. (10) defines the residual target as the reference state minus the baseline RD prediction, and §4.2 states that the only systematic difference between the reference and baseline models is replacing the spatially varying proliferation field with a global k. The 84.3% MSE reduction is therefore a U-Net fitting a deterministic discrepancy generated by the same simulator family that produced the training labels. The paper explicitly labels this as synthetic validation, so I am not treating it as a hidden circularity; however, the abstract presents the number as the headline contribution. The authors should either reframe the result as a function-approximation/capacity check on a synthetic misspecification, or add held-out parameter regimes (e.g., unseen proliferation fields, diffusion and treatment-response ranges not used in training) and, ideally, longitudinal animal or real-patient dat
[§4.3, §5.3, §5.5, Table 6] The online-updating improvement (45.9% MSE, 9.6% Dice) is obtained under dense observations in which Y_{j+1}=N^{ref}_{j+1} at every simulation step. The sparse-observation ablation in Table 6, using the same hyperparameters, shows MSE 15.2% worse and volume error 11.8% worse than the sparse RD baseline; only Dice improves. The subsequent MPC scheduling experiments use this dense-adapted model (§4.4, §5.4), so the 22.4% treatment-scheduling result inherits an oracle-observation assumption. Since clinical MRI is sparse and irregular, the authors should either retune online adaptation under a realistic observation schedule and run the controller with that model, or explicitly state in the abstract and Section 5 that all online-updating and scheduling gains are dense-oracle upper bounds. Currently the abstract does not carry this caveat.
[§5.4, Table 5, Fig. 12; Eq. (24)] The 22.4% median final-burden reduction is a paired summary reported without confidence intervals, a paired significance test, or the distribution of per-patient differences. The same table shows cumulative burden is substantially worse under MPC (859,409 vs 677,145), and the median maximum toxicity is near the constraint bound (4.98 vs 3.65 of 5.0). The fixed comparator is a single hand-picked schedule, and the random-shooting search uses 120 samples with no convergence check. For the claim that the 'updated DT controller reduces final tumor burden by 22.4%' to be load-bearing, the authors should report paired differences with bootstrap confidence intervals and test sensitivity to the comparator schedule, the MPC sample count, the toxicity penalty, and the choice of terminal-burden objective. As written, the result supports feasibility of closed-loop scheduling, but not a robust quantit

minor comments (5)

[Table 1 and §5.3] The 80/10/10 patient-level split of 387 trajectories yields about 38.7 test patients, but §5.3 reports 38 held-out test patients. Please clarify the exact split and any rounding.
[§5.3] The text says PSNR improves 'by 5.66 dB' as part of the online-adaptation results, but the tabulated values (27.9 to 30.5 dB) imply a 2.6 dB improvement. The 5.66 dB value appears to belong to the sparse-observation comparison in Table 3.
[Table 6] The dense online row reports 'MSE change vs. RD' as 43.6%, while §5.3 reports a 45.9% reduction relative to the offline hybrid model. Using different baselines in the table and text is confusing; please label the comparison base explicitly in every row.
[Table 5] The table header contains 'Planning strategyn', which appears to be a formatting artifact. The rows should be aligned so that the fixed schedule and online-adapted MPC are clearly distinguishable.
[General] No code or data-generation scripts are provided. UPENN-GBM is public, but the 387-trajectory generator, network training code, and MPC random-shooting implementation are not. Releasing these would substantially strengthen reproducibility, especially since all results are simulator-based.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all headline gains are transparently reported as in-silico results, and the residual-target definition is a standard supervised-learning setup rather than a hidden reduction. One minor self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular under the stated criteria. Eq. (10) defines the residual target as r_res = N_ref - N_RD, and Eq. (12) defines the hybrid output as N_RD + f_phi, so the reported 84.3% MSE reduction measures how well the learned residual approximates the simulator's own model-form mismatch on held-out patients. This is a supervised regression evaluation with a separate test cohort, not a prediction forced by construction; the paper explicitly labels it "simulator-consistent correction of mechanistic model mismatch" (Section 5.2). The 45.9% online-updating gain is obtained under a dense-observation protocol that the paper itself calls an "upper-bound capability" (Sections 4.3 and 5.5), and the sparse-observation ablation (Table 6) shows the same hyperparameters worsen MSE by 15.2%, a limitation the paper discloses. The MPC 22.4% terminal-burden reduction is replayed through the same controlled reference simulator, and the paper repeatedly states that schedules are "computational treatment-action policies" rather than clinical recommendations. There is one minor self-citation (reference [7], with author overlap) supporting the general digital-twin framing, but it is not load-bearing for any numerical result. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renaming of known results appear in the derivation. Concerns about clinical external validity are real limitations but are not circularity under the review rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on hand-selected simulation parameters, a self-defined residual target, and a synthetic ground truth. No new physical entities are postulated; the learned residual and exposure/toxicity states are model components, not independent entities.

free parameters (10)

Baseline RD proliferation rate k = 0.15
Global proliferation parameter in baseline model (Eq. 8); chosen by hand to create controlled mismatch with reference k(x).
Reference proliferation ratio (white-matter-to-base) = 1.5
Spatial heterogeneity in reference simulator (Sec. 4.2) that the residual must learn; chosen by hand.
Diffusion coefficients Dg, Dw = Dg=0.03, Dw=0.15
Tissue-dependent diffusion in Eq. (5); hand-chosen simulation constants.
Carrying capacity theta = 1
Normalized capacity in logistic growth; fixes scale of N.
Treatment-response parameters = betaC=0.03, lambdaC=0.30, etaC=1; betaR=0.30, lambdaR=0.50
Exposure-state chemotherapy/radiotherapy terms in Eqs. (6)-(7); hand-chosen.
Toxicity-state parameters = lambda_tox=0.30, beta_tox=0.40, toxmax=5
MPC toxicity constraint Eq. (25); hand-chosen.
Residual weighting alpha, threshold tau_res = alpha=10, tau_res=1e-4
Weighted loss Eq. (13); hand-chosen.
Online adaptation hyperparameters = H=3, steps=10, lr=1e-5, buffer=60
Sec. 4.3; chosen for dense observations, not tuned for sparse.
MPC hyperparameters = H_MPC=10, 120 candidates, emax=0.001, eps_r=0.1
Random-shooting controller (Sec. 3.4/4.4); hand-chosen.
3D U-Net architecture = widths 24/48/96/192, drop=0.1, residual scale=0.1
Network capacity choices; no ablation.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Reaction-diffusion equations are an adequate mechanistic representation of brain tumor growth
Section 3.1 Eq. (4); the entire mechanistic backbone rests on this adequacy.
ad hoc to paper Synthetic reference trajectories are a valid evaluation target
Section 4.1; all quantitative claims compare against a self-built simulator, not clinical observations.
domain assumption Treatment-conditioned Markov transition assumption
Section 3.1/3.4; state N_j and action a_j plus deterministic exposure states are assumed sufficient; the residual network is not conditioned on exposure states.
domain assumption The 3D U-Net can approximate the residual discrepancy function
Section 3.2; relies on universal approximation and training success, no error bounds given.
domain assumption ADC-derived cellularity proxy is a valid initial tumor state map
Section 3.1 Eqs. (2)-(3); initialization depends on this mapping.
ad hoc to paper Random-shooting with 120 samples is an adequate approximation to the optimal MPC policy
Section 3.4; approximate optimization explicitly acknowledged.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Augmented Adaptive Digital Twin Modeling for Brain Tumor Evolution Prediction and Treatment Scheduling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZHZPOZG

@misc{pith2026260713877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Augmented Adaptive Digital Twin Modeling for Brain Tumor Evolution Prediction and Treatment Scheduling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZHZPOZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13877}
}

read the original abstract

Brain tumor progression exhibits spatially heterogeneous growth, patient-specific treatment response, and complex interactions with surrounding anatomy, making accurate long-term prediction challenging. We propose an AI-augmented adaptive digital twin (DT) framework for brain tumor evolution prediction and treatment scheduling. The framework integrates an interpretable reaction--diffusion (RD) model, a 3D residual learning module for model-form correction, patient-specific DT updating during recursive rollout, and model predictive control (MPC) for constrained chemotherapy and radiotherapy scheduling. Experiments on 387 synthetic tumor trajectories with 120-step evolution show that the baseline RD model captures tumor location and overall temporal behavior but underestimates heterogeneous tumor burden during long-horizon prediction. Hybrid RD--residual modeling reduces masked voxel-wise mean squared error by 84.3% and increases Dice overlap by 43.5% relative to the RD baseline under dense simulated observations. Online DT updating further reduces mean squared error by 45.9% and improves Dice overlap by 9.6% compared with the non-updated hybrid model. In MPC-based scheduling simulations, the updated DT controller reduces final tumor burden by 22.4% relative to a fixed treatment schedule under the terminal-burden objective. Together, these results demonstrate a unified framework for patient-specific initialization, mechanistic modeling, adaptive learning, and constrained treatment optimization. Although validated using patient-data-informed synthetic trajectories rather than clinical longitudinal data, the proposed framework establishes a foundation for future translation to real-world adaptive treatment planning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13877 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Voxel-level comparison between the controlled reference simulation and baseline RD prediction for an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Cohort-level tumor-burden trajectories over the 120-step controlled rollout. The black curve denotes the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Spatial evolution of baseline RD error over the 120-step rollout for an illustrative patient. Columns show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Quantitative evaluation of baseline RD forecasting performance across the cohort. Panels (a)–(c) show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Qualitative voxel-level comparison for patient sample 1 from the dense simulated-observation setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Qualitative voxel-level comparison for patient sample 2 from the dense simulated-observation setting. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Quantitative evaluation of hybrid RD–residual forecasting performance. (a) Distribution of masked voxel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Cohort-level recursive forecasting performance for RD rollout, offline hybrid recursive rollout, and online [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Spatial evolution of tumor forecasts with and without online adaptation for an illustrative patient sample. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Patient-specific treatment schedules generated for an illustrative patient using offline and online-adapted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Paired treatment-scheduling comparison between the fixed schedule and online-adapted MPC across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Representative patient-specific failure case for online adaptation. Panel (a) shows masked voxel-wise MSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Neural operator preconditioning from mixed dataset for the Helmholtz equations: Application to transcranial ultrasound
math.NA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Six mixed training datasets are compared for a U-Net Helmholtz preconditioner; the best mix lets FGMRES solve 512×512 head-CT problems that GMRES and the Stanziola learned optimizer cannot.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Stupp, W

R. Stupp, W. P. Mason, M. J. Van Den Bent, M. Weller, B. Fisher, M. J. Taphoorn, K. Be- langer, A. A. Brandes, C. Marosi, U. Bogdahn, et al., Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma, New England journal of medicine 352 (10) (2005) 987–996

2005
[2]

Q. T. Ostrom, M. Price, C. Neﬀ, G. Cioﬃ, K. A. Waite, C. Kruchko, J. S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Cbtrus statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the united states in 2015–2019, Neuro-oncology 24 (Supplement_5) (2022) v1–v95. 30

2015
[3]

D. N. Louis, A. Perry, P. Wesseling, D. J. Brat, I. A. Cree, D. Figarella-Branger, C. Hawkins, H. Ng, S. M. Pﬁster, G. Reifenberger, et al., The 2021 who classiﬁcation of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary, Neuro-oncology 23 (8) (2021) 1231–1251

2021
[4]

Bakas, C

S. Bakas, C. Sako, H. Akbari, M. Bilello, A. Sotiras, G. Shukla, J. D. Rudie, N. F. Santamaría, A. F. Kazerooni, S. Pati, et al., The university of pennsylvania glioblastoma (upenn-gbm) cohort: advanced mri, clinical, genomics, & radiomics, Scientiﬁc data 9 (1) (2022) 453

2022
[5]

P. Y. Wen, D. R. Macdonald, D. A. Reardon, T. F. Cloughesy, A. G. Sorensen, E. Galanis, J. DeGroot, W. Wick, M. R. Gilbert, A. B. Lassman, et al., Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group, Journal of clinical oncology 28 (11) (2010) 1963–1972

2010
[6]

E. J. Fertig, E. M. Jaﬀee, P. Macklin, V. Stearns, C. Wang, Forecasting cancer: from precision to predictive medicine, Med 2 (9) (2021) 1004–1010

2021
[7]

Björnsson, C

B. Björnsson, C. Borrebaeck, N. Elander, T. Gasslander, D. R. Gawel, M. Gustafsson, R. Jörn- sten, E. J. Lee, X. Li, S. Lilja, et al., Digital twins to personalize medicine, Genome medicine 12 (1) (2019) 4

2019
[8]

C. Wu, G. Lorenzo, D. A. Hormuth, E. A. Lima, K. P. Slavkova, J. C. DiCarlo, J. Virostko, C. M. Phillips, D. Patt, C. Chung, et al., Integrating mechanism-based modeling with biomed- ical imaging to build practical digital twins for clinical oncology, Biophysics reviews 3 (2) (2022)

2022

Show all 47 references

[9]

J. D. Murray, J. D. Murray, Mathematical biology: II: spatial models and biomedical applica- tions, Vol. 18, Springer, 2003

2003
[10]

K. R. Swanson, E. C. Alvord Jr, J. D. Murray, A quantitative model for diﬀerential motility of gliomas in grey and white matter, Cell proliferation 33 (5) (2000) 317–329

2000
[11]

Jbabdi, E

S. Jbabdi, E. Mandonnet, H. Duﬀau, L. Capelle, K. R. Swanson, M. Pélégrini-Issac, R. Guillevin, H. Benali, Simulation of anisotropic growth of low-grade gliomas using diﬀu- sion tensor imaging, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Oﬃcial Journal of the International Society for ...

2005
[12]

Konukoglu, O

E. Konukoglu, O. Clatz, B. H. Menze, B. Stieltjes, M.-A. Weber, E. Mandonnet, H. Delingette, N. Ayache, Image guided personalization of reaction-diﬀusion type tumor growth models using modiﬁed anisotropic eikonal equations, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 29 (1) (2009) 77–95

2009
[13]

D. A. Hormuth II, J. A. Weis, S. L. Barnes, M. I. Miga, E. C. Rericha, V. Quaranta, T. E. Yankeelov, Predicting in vivo glioma growth with the reaction diﬀusion equation constrained by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging data, Physical biology 12 (4) (2015) 046006

2015
[14]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial diﬀerential equations, Journal of Computational physics 378 (2019) 686–707

2019
[15]

Mascheroni, S

P. Mascheroni, S. Savvopoulos, J. C. L. Alfonso, M. Meyer-Hermann, H. Hatzikirou, Improving personalized tumor growth predictions using a bayesian combination of mechanistic modeling and machine learning, Communications medicine 1 (1) (2021) 19. 31

2021
[16]

Bengio, O

S. Bengio, O. Vinyals, N. Jaitly, N. Shazeer, Scheduled sampling for sequence prediction with recurrent neural networks, Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

2015
[17]

Q. Wang, O. Fink, L. Van Gool, D. Dai, Continual test-time domain adaptation, in: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 7201–7211

2022
[18]

R. B. Martin, Optimal control drug scheduling of cancer chemotherapy, Automatica 28 (6) (1992) 1113–1123

1992
[19]

D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, P. O. Scokaert, Survey constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality, Automatica (Journal of IF AC) 36 (6) (2000) 789–814

2000
[20]

J. B. Rawlings, M. J. Risbeck, Model predictive control with discrete actuators: Theory and application, Automatica 78 (2017) 258–265

2017
[21]

Hirata, S.-i

Y. Hirata, S.-i. Azuma, K. Aihara, Model predictive control for optimally scheduling intermit- tent androgen suppression of prostate cancer, Methods 67 (3) (2014) 278–281

2014
[22]

H. L. Harpold, E. C. Alvord Jr, K. R. Swanson, The evolution of mathematical modeling of glioma proliferation and invasion, Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology 66 (1) (2007) 1–9

2007
[23]

Mandonnet, J.-Y

E. Mandonnet, J.-Y. Delattre, M.-L. Tanguy, K. R. Swanson, A. F. Carpentier, H. Duﬀau, P. Cornu, R. Van Eﬀenterre, E. C. Alvord Jr, L. Capelle, Continuous growth of mean tumor diameter in a subset of grade ii gliomas, Annals of Neurology: Oﬃcial Journal of the American Neurolo...

2003
[24]

S. E. Maier, Y. Sun, R. V. Mulkern, Diﬀusion imaging of brain tumors, NMR in biomedicine 23 (7) (2010) 849–864

2010
[25]

Clatz, M

O. Clatz, M. Sermesant, P.-Y. Bondiau, H. Delingette, S. K. Warﬁeld, G. Malandain, N. Ay- ache, Realistic simulation of the 3-d growth of brain tumors in mr images coupling diﬀusion with biomechanical deformation, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 24 (10) (2005) 1334– 1346

2005
[26]

Hogea, C

C. Hogea, C. Davatzikos, G. Biros, An image-driven parameter estimation problem for a reaction–diﬀusion glioma growth model with mass eﬀects, Journal of mathematical biology 56 (6) (2008) 793–825

2008
[27]

Konukoglu, O

E. Konukoglu, O. Clatz, H. Delingette, N. Ayache, Personalization of reaction-diﬀusion tumor growth models in mr images: application to brain gliomas characterization and radiotherapy planning, Multiscale Cancer Modeling (2010)

2010
[28]

Rockne, J

R. Rockne, J. Rockhill, M. Mrugala, A. Spence, I. Kalet, K. Hendrickson, A. Lai, T. Cloughesy, E. Alvord Jr, K. Swanson, Predicting the eﬃcacy of radiotherapy in individual glioblastoma patients in vivo: a mathematical modeling approach, Physics in Medicine & Biology 55 (12) (...

2010
[29]

K. R. Swanson, R. C. Rostomily, E. Alvord, A mathematical modelling tool for predicting survival of individual patients following resection of glioblastoma: a proof of principle, British journal of cancer 98 (1) (2008) 113–119. 32

2008
[30]

A. L. Baldock, K. Yagle, D. E. Born, S. Ahn, A. D. Trister, M. Neal, S. K. Johnston, C. A. Bridge, D. Basanta, J. Scott, et al., Invasion and proliferation kinetics in enhancing gliomas predict idh1 mutation status, Neuro-oncology 16 (6) (2014) 779–786

2014
[31]

C. Wu, E. A. Lima, C. E. Stowers, Z. Xu, C. Yam, J. B. Son, J. Ma, G. M. Rauch, T. E. Yan- keelov, Mri-based digital twins to improve treatment response of breast cancer by optimizing neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens, npj Digital Medicine 8 (1) (2025) 195

2025
[32]

T. E. Yankeelov, N. Atuegwu, D. Hormuth, J. A. Weis, S. L. Barnes, M. I. Miga, E. C. Rericha, V. Quaranta, Clinically relevant modeling of tumor growth and treatment response, Science translational medicine 5 (187) (2013) 187ps9–187ps9

2013
[33]

Chaudhuri, G

A. Chaudhuri, G. Pash, D. A. Hormuth, G. Lorenzo, M. Kapteyn, C. Wu, E. A. Lima, T. E. Yankeelov, K. Willcox, Predictive digital twin for optimizing patient-speciﬁc radiotherapy regimens under uncertainty in high-grade gliomas, Frontiers in Artiﬁcial Intelligence 6 (2023) 1222612

2023
[34]

G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, L. Yang, Physics-informed machine learning, Nature Reviews Physics 3 (6) (2021) 422–440

2021
[35]

Willard, X

J. Willard, X. Jia, S. Xu, M. Steinbach, V. Kumar, Integrating scientiﬁc knowledge with machine learning for engineering and environmental systems, ACM Computing Surveys 55 (4) (2022) 1–37

2022
[36]

S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, J. N. Kutz, Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identiﬁcation of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 113 (15) (2016) 3932–3937

2016
[37]

S. H. Rudy, S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, J. N. Kutz, Data-driven discovery of partial diﬀerential equations, Science advances 3 (4) (2017) e1602614

2017
[38]

R. T. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, D. K. Duvenaud, Neural ordinary diﬀerential equa- tions, Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

2018
[39]

Rackauckas, Y

C. Rackauckas, Y. Ma, J. Martensen, C. Warner, K. Zubov, R. Supekar, D. Skinner, A. Ra- madhan, A. Edelman, Universal diﬀerential equations for scientiﬁc machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385 (2020)

2001 arXiv
[40]

Martens, A

C. Martens, A. Rovai, D. Bonatto, T. Metens, O. Debeir, C. Decaestecker, S. Goldman, G. Van Simaeys, Deep learning for reaction-diﬀusion glioma growth modeling: Towards a fully personalized model?, Cancers 14 (10) (2022) 2530

2022
[41]

R. E. Kalman, A new approach to linear ﬁltering and prediction problems (1960)

1960
[42]

Evensen, Sampling strategies and square root analysis schemes for the enkf, Ocean dynamics 54 (6) (2004) 539–560

G. Evensen, Sampling strategies and square root analysis schemes for the enkf, Ocean dynamics 54 (6) (2004) 539–560

2004
[43]

R. A. Gatenby, A. S. Silva, R. J. Gillies, B. R. Frieden, Adaptive therapy, Cancer research 69 (11) (2009) 4894–4903

2009
[44]

Zhang, J

J. Zhang, J. J. Cunningham, J. S. Brown, R. A. Gatenby, Integrating evolutionary dynamics into treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, Nature communications 8 (1) (2017) 1816. 33

2017
[45]

Ronneberger, P

O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, T. Brox, U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image seg- mentation, in: International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

2015
[46]

Çiçek, A

Ö. Çiçek, A. Abdulkadir, S. S. Lienkamp, T. Brox, O. Ronneberger, 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation, in: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, 2016, pp. 424–432

2016
[47]

Isensee, P

F. Isensee, P. F. Jaeger, S. A. Kohl, J. Petersen, K. H. Maier-Hein, nnu-net: a self-conﬁguring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation, Nature methods 18 (2) (2021) 203–211. 34

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Stupp, W

R. Stupp, W. P. Mason, M. J. Van Den Bent, M. Weller, B. Fisher, M. J. Taphoorn, K. Be- langer, A. A. Brandes, C. Marosi, U. Bogdahn, et al., Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma, New England journal of medicine 352 (10) (2005) 987–996

2005

[2] [2]

Q. T. Ostrom, M. Price, C. Neﬀ, G. Cioﬃ, K. A. Waite, C. Kruchko, J. S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Cbtrus statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the united states in 2015–2019, Neuro-oncology 24 (Supplement_5) (2022) v1–v95. 30

2015

[3] [3]

D. N. Louis, A. Perry, P. Wesseling, D. J. Brat, I. A. Cree, D. Figarella-Branger, C. Hawkins, H. Ng, S. M. Pﬁster, G. Reifenberger, et al., The 2021 who classiﬁcation of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary, Neuro-oncology 23 (8) (2021) 1231–1251

2021

[4] [4]

Bakas, C

S. Bakas, C. Sako, H. Akbari, M. Bilello, A. Sotiras, G. Shukla, J. D. Rudie, N. F. Santamaría, A. F. Kazerooni, S. Pati, et al., The university of pennsylvania glioblastoma (upenn-gbm) cohort: advanced mri, clinical, genomics, & radiomics, Scientiﬁc data 9 (1) (2022) 453

2022

[5] [5]

P. Y. Wen, D. R. Macdonald, D. A. Reardon, T. F. Cloughesy, A. G. Sorensen, E. Galanis, J. DeGroot, W. Wick, M. R. Gilbert, A. B. Lassman, et al., Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group, Journal of clinical oncology 28 (11) (2010) 1963–1972

2010

[6] [6]

E. J. Fertig, E. M. Jaﬀee, P. Macklin, V. Stearns, C. Wang, Forecasting cancer: from precision to predictive medicine, Med 2 (9) (2021) 1004–1010

2021

[7] [7]

Björnsson, C

B. Björnsson, C. Borrebaeck, N. Elander, T. Gasslander, D. R. Gawel, M. Gustafsson, R. Jörn- sten, E. J. Lee, X. Li, S. Lilja, et al., Digital twins to personalize medicine, Genome medicine 12 (1) (2019) 4

2019

[8] [8]

C. Wu, G. Lorenzo, D. A. Hormuth, E. A. Lima, K. P. Slavkova, J. C. DiCarlo, J. Virostko, C. M. Phillips, D. Patt, C. Chung, et al., Integrating mechanism-based modeling with biomed- ical imaging to build practical digital twins for clinical oncology, Biophysics reviews 3 (2) (2022)

2022